Following “DAP”: a qualitative evaluation process using NVivo7 software

One of the most important challenges facing qualitative researchers and the evaluation process in social sciences is the use of appropriate types of software. In this context, we explore how NVivo7 software for qualitative data analysis can be used to ease the process of organizing, storing, retrieving and analysing data in a given research project. We deal with the evaluation process of the Educational Programme 'DAP' (Didáctica del Arte y del Patrimonio), developed by the 'Fundación ArteViva Europa' during the academic year 2005-2006 in Spain.
In this presentation we first discuss the theoretical guidelines that oriented our evaluation. We thendescribe how we use NVivo7 in the process of data analysis, using an example of children’ dialogue in the classroom. The data presented in this paper form part of the evaluation report that we developed for 'Fundación ArteViva Europa' at the end of the process (Lacasa et al. 2006). In this paper we show how we have evaluated this journey through art, in which we treat as a unit of analysis each of the 36 works of art presented in the course of the programme, grouped in nine different lessons. We focus on two kinds of data, which enable us to utilise both macro- and micro-levels of analysis. First we consider the session summaries drawn up by the teachers’ companions; we will focus on 90 of them from the same observer. Secondly, from the perspective of conversational analysis, we discuss the dialogue of a group session during which children and teachers have learned how to think and dialogue by looking at and discovering one specific painting in the museum context.
Our discussion and conclusions discuss how children following the programme develop analytical and narrative ways of thinking. Moreover, these different approaches to art seem to be related to specific kind of paintings. The discussion considers the Bruner (2002) approach, in which he establishes relationships between analytical and narrative thought. Even at the risk of excessive simplification, we argue that, in agreement with Bruner, the first –analytical- corresponds clearly to science, while the second – narrative – helps to make sense of everyday life. In our opinion, this is not about establishing mutually exclusive contrasts between these ways of thinking, but rather about exploring the extent to which they can complement each other in human and social sciences, as well as exploring the role that classroom and museum conversations about specific paintings can play in the construction of narrative and analytical thinking.